Today Apple released an update to Xcode. And here we go again.

Let the Good Times Roll
First off, there appears to be no way to update the software from the application page:

Nor does it appear in the Updates section of my Mac App Store:

To install the update I had to go to the Purchased section:

Ah! There it is, and it appears to see my current install. But this is what I get when I click the UPDATE button:

Nice. More useless error messages. See, I am signed into the account I used to purchase Xcode. So this makes no sense whatsoever.

Fortunately, I’m a SysAdmin, and this sort of thing is our forte. I figure App Store is probably confused because I moved the original installer app off my main hard drive due to space constraints that were causing the original install to fail. Putting the Install Xcode.app back in to /Applications should do the trick, I reason.

Sure enough, doing so allows me to run the update from App Store. Now I get this:

Well, that’s pretty ironic! Seems like that’s the message I should have gotten the first time I attempted to install Xcode 4.0. I’ll call this progress though, as it’s the first error message I’ve seen that might make any sense to a normal user. Still, though, there’s no indication of how to fix the problem. Just how much disk space I’ll need is never specified. Not before I began the process, nor during the process. This is simply terrible UI, folks. Simply terrible!

So I decided that probably the best way to clear up the needed space was to completely delete the current Xcode 4.0 install. I’m pretty sure that no matter what you do, the Install Xcode.app is going to overwrite everything anyway, so I may as well delete it.

Unfortunately, this leaves me with the original problem with the Update. I get this thing again:

So now I’m in a catch-22: If I keep everything I need for the Updater — the Install Xcode.app and the entire Developer folder — I don’t have enough space to complete the update. But if I remove any of these items, the App Store isn’t able to perform the Update because it doesn’t seem to recognize the app as being fully installed (despite the fact that it sees it on the product page as installed) or as having been installed by me.

The first thing I tried was using a symlink pointing to the Install Xcode.app on another drive to clear some disk space. No dice. The actual Install Xcode.app needs to be in /Applications.

Next, I tried deleting just a portion of the Developer install, particularly the folder /Developer/Platforms/iPhoneOS.platform, which is just under 4GB. And now we’re back to the “sign in to the account” message again. I also moved this folder and tried using a symlink to it as well, with the same result.

Next I tried removing the Install Xcode.app payload, a hidden folder that lives inside the app that’s full of PKG bundles. Also no go.

It looks like the only way to update Xcode is to actually have Install Xcode.app and the Developer folder in their expected locations, and then, if you’re short on disk space, to find several GBs of non-Xcode files — how many GBs I can only speculate, but I’ll guess around 4 GBs (to give me a total of 10 GBs free) — to temporarily remove while I complete the update. Then, once the update is complete, I should be able to remove the Install Xcode.app (or move it to a backup disk) and put back the temporarily deleted files. Fun times!

Okay! So, after clearing up some space, the update still doesn’t work! Argh! I am STILL getting the “updates for other accounts” message.

I’m at a complete loss at this point. And what do we do when we’re at a complete loss, kids? That’s right: Time to reboot.

Reboot to the Rescue
After rebooting and opening the App Store, and signing in to my account, here’s what I see in the Updates screen:

App Store now sees my Xcode install and recognizes it as something it can update. This looks very promising. And this is what I see when I hit the UPDATE button:

Ahhh! Sweet blessed mercy! At last! It’s working!

But wait… After the 20 minute “Update” process completes, App Store says my app is updated:

But Xcode begs to differ:

Turns out it’s only the Install Xcode.app that’s been updated:

So I run the Install Xcode.app, and this is what it tells me:

Un-fucking-believable.

Now What?
In theory, the best way for me to clear up disk space for an Xcode update is to delete the older version. I tried this before, however, and App Store got confused. But, ever the glutton for punishment, I simply must know if the Install Xcode.app will work under this scenario. It absolutely should. So I delete /Developer. Again. I rerun the updated Install Xcode.app and:

Seems to be working. It’s about frickin’ time.

The Deal
So here’s the deal: Apple simply doesn’t provide an accurate figure for how much disk space is required for installing Xcode. If you’re wondering what the actual number is, I think I’m able to glean it from my experiments and am happy to provide this figure.

Also, there are a number of possible issues that can crop up if you happen to be low on disk space and are working around those constraints, so I’ll provide some info on just what’s going on under the hood with these updates.

Total Disk Space Required: 15 GBs

Itemized Disk Space Requirements:

• Install Xcode.app: 4.5 GBs
• Xcode and Related Developer Tools and Libraries: 10 GBs

What’s Actually Happening During an Update:

• When you update Xcode from the App Store, you’re not actually updating Xcode. You’re updating the Install Xcode.app.
• You must have enough disk space at update time to accommodate this update, about 4.5 GBs.
• After running the App Store update, you must run the Install Xcode.app to actually update Xcode.
• The Install Xcode.app does not actually update existing components, it instead wants to completely overwrite your current install of /Developer, and so will need the full 10 GBs of disk space that install requires.
• At this point, however, if you want to clear some disk space, it’s safe to delete /Developer.

Additional Possible Issues:

• In order to update Xcode, bare minimum, App Store obviously wants to see that Xcode is installed under the active account.
• If App Store is complaining about your install or your user account, I highly recommend a reboot of your system before proceeding. This will likely cause App Store to fully recognize the install and account info, particularly if you’ve been mucking around in any way, shape or form.
• The easiest way to manage all this is to keep the Developer Tools where they’re expected — in /Developer — and to keep the Install Xcode.app where it’s expected — in /Applications. If you have the disk space, this should make everything work more smoothly.
• There are workarounds for this, but as you can see, they’re not necessarily pretty.

All in all, I’d call this a major failure for the App Store. I’ll say again, the App Store is meant to simplify the application installation process, and is meant primarily for the installation of simple, drag-and-drop type apps. By breaking its own protocol and using the App Store to install a complex suite of applications and libraries, Apple is both setting a terrible example for other developers, and creating one of the worst user experiences I’ve had in a very long time.

David begins his rousing critique of the IT industry thusly:

“When people talk about their IT departments, they always talk about the things they’re not allowed to do, the applications they can’t run, and the long time it takes to get anything done. Rigid and inflexible policies that fill the air with animosity. Not to mention the frustrations of speaking different languages. None of this is a good foundation for a sustainable relationship.”

True enough. This is often what people talk about when they talk about IT. They rarely talk about how awesome it is that they have a usable network or rooms full of computers without viruses. But let’s continue.

“If businesses had as many gripes with an external vendor, that vendor would’ve been dropped long ago. But IT departments have endured as a necessary evil. I think those days are coming to an end.”

Typically, businesses don’t have gripes with IT, end-users do. But, okay, I’m curious to hear your reasoning.

“The problem with IT departments seems to be that they’re set up as a forced internal vendor. From the start, they have a monopoly on the ‘computer problem’ – such monopolies have a tendency to produce the customer service you’d expect from the US Postal Service. The IT department has all the power, they’re not going anywhere (at least not in the short term), and their customers are seen as mindless peons. There’s no feedback loop for improvement.”

I don’t think that that’s really the problem with IT departments at all. The problem is that many IT departments make crappy policy decisions that are user-hostile. But that’s not because they have “all the power.” In fact those decisions are often, I’d suspect, borne out of a need to satisfy certain technical goals using limited resources. The characterization that IT departments see their customers “as mindless peons” is offensive to anyone who works in this business, and generalizations such as these do as much to “fill the air with animosity” as any IT policy does. Clearly, the flip-side of “the problem” is an almost willful ignorance on the part of certain members of the tech biz — David, I’m looking at you — to make even the slightest effort to understand what IT departments do before making grand proclamations on the internet about the “end of IT.” While I do agree that there should be better avenues for feedback, that doesn’t mean I can always get what I want. And crying about it is a five-year-old’s tactic.

“Obviously, I can see the other side of the fence as well. IT departments are usually treated as a cost center, just above mail delivery and food service in the corporate pecking order, and never win anything when shit just works, but face the wrath of everyone when THE EXCHANGE SERVER IS DOWN!!!!!”

You’re goddamned right about that. I suspect that a well-respected, well-treated IT department would have warmer, fuzzier feelings for its “customers.” But the fact is that, because people like David continue to see IT departments simply as “cost centers” and not as members of a single team with a shared goal, IT departments continue to be reviled, often by members of the very corporate structures upon which they depend. Unfortunately, this relationship has been sustainable for over twenty years. Probably because, in many institutions, it is a relationship that, though pathalogical in many ways, is necessary.

“At the same time, IT job security is often dependent on making things hard, slow, and complex. If the Exchange Server didn’t require two people to babysit it at all times, that would mean two friends out of work. Of course using hosted Gmail is a bad idea! It’s the same forces and mechanics that slowly turned unions from a force of progress (proper working conditions for all!) to a force of stagnation (only Jack can move the conference chairs, Joe is the only guy who can fix the microphone).”

No, IT job security is not “dependent on making things hard, slow, and complex.” I’m so tired of hearing that. It’s simply not true, and I’d love to hear a concrete, real-world example of some place where that was the case. The fact of the matter is, IT job security is dependent on making things work. Period. If you really think that the IT department uses Exchange Server so that their buddies can get a job, you simply don’t have a clue what IT does.

“But change is coming. Dealing with technology has gone from something only for the techy geeks to something more mainstream. Younger generations get it. Computer savvyness is no longer just for the geek squad.”

Change may be coming. Indeed, I hope it is, because I would love to see the relationship between IT and the end-user improved upon, and, where possible, lessened or even ended. And certainly “dealing with technology” is something everyone has to do these days, but after working in tech education for eleven years, I see no evidence that people have gotten any tech-saavier at all. In fact, from one year to the next, people seem to be pretty much the same: they’re either tech-saavy or they’re not. It has less to do with exposure, more to do with personality. Some people can sing, some people can’t. Making the bad singers listen to music all day doesn’t make them good singers.

“You no longer need a tech person at the office to man ‘the server room.’ Responsibility for keeping the servers running has shifted away from the centralized IT department. Today you can get just about all the services that previously required local expertise from a web site somewhere.”

Apparently, David, you seem to think that all IT does is run servers, which you seem to think requires them to stand next to them inside a server closet somewhere. Hate to break it to you, buddy, but IT does way more than run your shitty-ass fucking servers. IT configures your switches; they deploy your workstations to your labs; they build and maintain your render clusters, your RAIDs your SANs; they provide all your network infrastructure and keep your workstations virus- and botnet-free. And they usually do it from some sunless underground cavern because idiots like you fail to see their importance. You cannot get any of those things from a website.

“The transition won’t happen over night, but it’s long since begun. The companies who feel they can do without an official IT department are growing in number and size. It’s entirely possible to run a 20-man office without ever even considering the need for a computer called “server” somewhere.”

Again, your obsession with servers. And again, I’d love to see some numbers on this. But okay, let’s assume for a minute that you’re right. What you’re basically saying is that there are a lot more smaller companies forming on a regular basis out there. And, sure, smaller companies don’t need an IT department. But smaller companies never needed an IT department. Smaller companies could always outsource their technology needs. That’s not new. That’s not change. That’s just more proof that you don’t know the first thing about what IT departments are or what they do.

“The good news for IT department operators is that they’re not exactly saddled with skills that can’t be used elsewhere. Most auto workers and textile makers would surely envy their impending doom and ask for a swap.”

And that’s proof that you’re a condescending asshole.

Finally, for the straight shit on what IT actually does, John C. Welch says far more than I ever could (as he actually works in IT) and with far fouler language.

UPDATE:
Here’s the inimitable Mr. Welch’s response to the very same article. See? I told ya so. (Thanks, John Mahlman, for the tip.)

It seems to me that the reason Apple made stores in the first place was that they had something to prove, and the best way to make their point was to show rather than to tell.

Back in the day there were a whole lot of people who were at least considering the possibility of switching to a Mac. But they had questions: would a Mac be able to connect to the Internet? Could I surf the web on one? Could I print to my printer on one? Essentially, can I do on a Mac what I can on Windows?

I believe Apple Stores initially sprung up to answer these questions. They don’t actually exist to show the disparities between the Mac platform and Windows, rather the similarities, and, surely, the advantages of using a Mac to do the same things Windows does. There’s nothing particularly exclusive about the Apple Store, in fact it’s very inclusive. You go there to see and touch and experience this thing you’ve only ever heard about, this mystery that is a Mac.

For a lot of people the Mac is still a new concept. It’s no surprise the Microsoft Store is less wondrous: everyone’s already seen Windows.

A recent example comes from Mr. Dave Winer (via Daring Fireball). Winer, writing about a possible upcoming Apple TV that would purportedly rely completely on wireless network connectivity and Apple’s media network for content, opines the lack of ports on the device. He plays the freedom card:

I’ve said it before and it’s worth saying again. Apple is building the Disney computer network. All the streets are clean, and the entertainment too. There’s no porn here, and as long as there are no ports it’ll stay that way. But computers are meant to be more than DisneyLand, they are meant to solve societal problems and help our species evolve. That means we must have freedom. And freedom and control are exact opposites. So I’d rather have wire-cluttered desktops and TV stations, than have Apple decide what I can and can’t watch.

Not long ago I pointed out that most arguments against Apple’s rejection of Flash on their mobile platform were about freedom on the web — which should certainly be free — rather than the real issue, which is Apple’s development platform — whose freedom is completely up to Apple. I find people lumping these two arguments together, when in fact they are largely unique:

Adobe makes it out like they just want people to be able to watch YouTube videos. But believe me, that too is a red herring. Adobe wants people to use Flash to write iPhone OS-native applications. Adobe wants control over Apple’s mobile platform.

I also pointed out another common conflation being made in many of the arguments floating around the web, and that is that Apple’s mobile devices are computers, a point of view with which I take some issue, and which I think is really beginning to cause a great deal of confusion in the tech sector:

Until the iPhone there was never an expectation that phones should either run Flash or be open. A phone is not a personal computer. It’s a phone. All smartphones are just phones. They play by a whole different set of rules. And that set of rules is much longer and stricter than that of a personal computer.

The way I see it — and I think many of my peers would agree — the iPad and iPhone are not computers in the traditional sense of the word. From where I sit, a computer is a highly complex but highly capable device that can be used in extremely complex endeavors of creativity. It is immensely flexible in its configuration and abilities, and it can be charmed into performing near miraculous feats.

The iPad and the iPhone, on the other hand, are much simpler devices with much more limited capabilities and intended uses. They are largely used for either the most basic of productivity — the checking of email, the writing of lists or the creation of fairly simple documents — or for the consumption of media — books, movies, music. You can call them extremely capable iPods or extremely limited computers, I suppose, but they’re not computers in the sense that I think of computers.

From a systems perspective, I think of the difference between iPads and MacBooks as akin to the difference between servers and server appliances. Server appliances are those inexpensive boxes you can buy for your home network that are mainly meant to be used for basic file sharing. The appliances are connected to and configured, in a limited fashion, via a web browser. For anyone who just needs a simple file server, they’re quick and easy for the layperson to set up and they do their job perfectly adequately. But you can’t log directly onto them, there is no access to the filesystem and they only do a handful of things. (Sound familiar?) They’re not exactly true “servers” in the full sense of the word.

A true server is capable of and intended to be used for much more than simple file sharing. Typically you can log directly onto such a machine and configure it to perform a variety of complex and sophisticated tasks at very low levels, from file sharing to web and mail hosting to DNS. A true server, compared to its appliance counterpart, is vastly more complex and vastly more capable. And, of course, it’s infinitely “free.”

We live in a world in which these things coexist: We have server appliances for cases in which simplicity and ease-of-use are paramount; and we have full servers for cases in which we need ultimate power and flexibility. This is a very, very good thing.

Returning to Mr. Winer’s argument with this idea in mind, I feel his conclusion is completely misguided. Winer is arguing for the freedom of computers, but he’s not talking about a traditional, full-featured computer. He’s talking about a device whose only purpose is for watching movies and TV. To say that the Apple TV should allow whatever content we want to put on it because all computers should be “free” is to erroneously conflate computers with the Apple TV, as well as with all other such products. They’re simply not the same.

Perhaps what we need is a term for these devices that distinguishes them from one another. I like calling them “managed devices.” On the one hand we have personal computers, completely unmanaged systems like my MacBook Pro, that allow for whatever sort of mucking about one might like to do. On the other hand we have this other class of much more limited devices, “managed devices” like the iPad, the iPhone and the Apple TV, which, though they are indeed computerized, are much more limited in their capabilities and intended scope. Because, frankly, treating these two sorts of devices like they’re the same is leading to a lot of confusion and arguments that just don’t make sense.

There’s another side of Winer’s argument that I take issue with, and that’s the idea that it’s somehow bad that Apple wants to keep pornography off its entertainment platform. The comparison drawn by Winer is with Disney. But the fact is that every single media outlet in the world controls what will and will not be hosted on its channels. Winer’s argument strikes me as bizarre. No one complains that ABC, NBC or CBS don’t show porn. No one complains that YouTube, Netflix or Blockbuster don’t offer porn. Indeed, no one seems to mind that Disney itself is porn-free. Because that’s what they do. They offer a clean, wholesome environment. If you want porn, don’t go to DisneyLand. It’s really that simple. Yes, I agree that the Internet should be free and open. But Apple’s media network is not the Internet, nor are their devices.

These false equations — equating Apple’s entertainment division with their computer division, their managed devices with their unmanaged ones, their mobile platform with the Internet — are wrongheaded. And they’re only exacerbated (sometimes intentionally, I’d wager) by ad campaigns like Adobe’s and propaganda pieces John Sullivan’s, creating a self-fulfilling echo chamber that leads us to twisted, inappropriate conclusions like Mr. Winer’s.

For what it’s worth, I believe that Apple will continue to make personal computers — unmanaged devices that offer all the complexities and freedoms that folks like Dave Winer, John Sullivan and, yes, myself desire — for as long as there’s a market for such devices, which I think will be for quite some time. Their lack of Flash support on their mobile platform does not preclude that. Nor does their lack of ports on their purported TV watching device. Nor does their management of their App Store. I also believe they’ll continue to offer managed devices, like the iPod, iPad, iPhone and Apple TV, over which they will maintain considerable control, because there is and will surely continue to be a demand for such products.

To claim that these things are in any way the death of computing freedom is patently absurd sensationalism. It completely misses the point of everything that’s happening with Apple and technology in general, and only serves to lower the level of discourse on the matter.

For my part I largely agree with Jobs’ take and feel that the FSF response pretty much misses the mark. Jobs is essentially saying, “We want our platform to be the best, and in order for that to happen we need to exercise a certain amount of control.” Though he cites certain examples of open software contributions made by Apple, Jobs never claims that Apple products are open or free. He merely cautions us not to believe the freedom hype: Flash is certainly not free either. And, in his opinion, it’s bad for Apple’s mobile platform. That means it’s bad for Apple, but it also means, in theory, that it’s bad for the consumer. As a fan of Apple products, I tend to agree.

The Free Software Foundation’s John Sullivan, on the other hand, is using the occasion of Jobs’ open letter to go on a lengthy diatribe about free software. This is, again, beside the point, from Apple’s point of view. They’re not a free software company, and they don’t claim to be. What’s funny, though, is the fact that Sullivan illustrates Jobs’ point when he cites examples of free software:

“Fortunately, the way out of the Adobe vs. Apple cage match is straightforward, and exists already: free software operating systems like GNU/Linux with free software Web browsers, supporting free media formats like Ogg Theora.”

Compare that with Sullivan’s list of commercial software:

“…Final Cut Studio, Google Chrome, Mac OS X…”

There you have it, folks. Right there. It’s crappy versus great. The free software Sullivan lists in his own defense of free software pales in comparison to some of the exceptional commercial software he lists. I have not found a flavor of Linux I’d ever prefer to Mac OS X, and there simply is no comparable free video editor to Final Cut Pro. It would seem that if we want our freedom we’ll have to suffer for it indefinitely if we’re to follow Sullivan’s advice.

But again, this is all beside the point. To reiterate: Apple wants to build the best platform in the world, and Flash is contrary to that goal.

So there are a few things I keep coming back to, and they have to do with how all this is being argued. The first: every time someone clarifies Apple’s position on Flash someone else counters with a completely irrelevant argument. It’s usually this open vs. closed argument, which, upon any level of scrutiny, including and beyond that above, simply falls apart. But I have yet to hear a coherent argument for Flash on the iPhone OS. Maybe there isn’t one. The best, most thorough coverage I’ve found on the matter has been, not surprisingly, Daring Fireball. Gruber’s thinking on the matter, of which there is plenty, is complete and accurate and cuts through most of the crap.

The second is that there seems to be a lot of confusion over how Flash can and would be used on the iPhone OS. Adobe makes it out like they just want people to be able to watch YouTube videos. But believe me, that too is a red herring. Adobe wants people to use Flash to write iPhone OS-native applications. Adobe wants control over Apple’s mobile platform. Make no mistake, this is not a battle for the web, it’s a battle for the OS, the platform. But every time Adobe proponents are backed into the corner, they play the web card, which is total bullshit.

My last source of confusion (on this matter, at least) is that people are going after Apple on this at all. Until the iPhone there was never an expectation that phones should either run Flash or be open. A phone is not a personal computer. It’s a phone. All smartphones are just phones. They play by a whole different set of rules. And that set of rules is much longer and stricter than that of a personal computer. No one ever complained that Nokia’s phones weren’t open. Or Motorola’s. Or Samsung’s. Why now is it completely offensive that Apple’s phones should be? Moreover, there are no phones in existence today that can display Flash content because of all the reasons cited by Jobs in his letter. Google’s phones don’t. Neither do Palm’s. So why is everyone going after Apple? It’s just crazy.

When I think about it real hard, there are only two reasons I can come up with for this backlash: 1) Flash proponents know it’s the end. People with a great deal of emotional stake in Flash are pissed because they realize that if Apple’s hugely successful mobile platform doesn’t include Flash, it will mean the death of Flash. If you’re a Flash developer, that might be a little scary; and 2) People like to use one issue to talk about another issue (see above).

Until someone is able to defend Adobe cogently and sensibly on this matter I will continue to agree with Apple and Jobs. But let’s be very clear about one thing: this is not about open vs. free at all, and any argument that takes that tack is completely beside the point. No, this is about nothing less than control of Apple’s mobile platform. And I’d rather let Apple run it than Adobe.

Also, today (Sep 10) my Snow Leopard Box Set — which I pre-ordered from Amazon on Aug 20 — finally arrived.

The MacBook Pro was a built-to-order system shipped from the plant in China and came in one week.

The pre-ordered software, counting from its release date, took twice as long to arrive.

You do the math. Me, I’m gonna go play with my new machine.

See ya!

Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Company

I will never go back to Sprint; they have lost me forever as a customer. But if they want to hold onto the ones they have, one thing they might try, for starters, is not treating them like shit.

Just a thought.

Apple Tablet? No Thanks! (artist's rendition via AppleInsider)

Besides, I thought the advantage of tablet computers was that you could draw on them. I thought they were for artists. This thing doesn’t look like you’re meant to use it that way at all. And isn’t the whole reason Apple went with a virtual keyboard on the iPhone because of the small size of the device, to conserve space? What would be the purpose on a larger device?

I realize all is speculation at this point, and maybe I’m missing something about this thing that isn’t obvious because the device hasn’t even been announced. I mean, who knows, maybe it’s something completely revolutionary, like nothing we’ve ever seen before, with fabulous, new untold uses and capabilities. Or, hell, maybe you can draw on it. That would be great.

But if this thing’s for real and it’s anything like the rumors say it is, I’m amazed anyone’s excited about it at all. It sounds like a computer without a purpose.

Oh, and one more thing: when it comes out they should call it the Ablet. Right? Don’t you think?

Totally.

“We realize this situation puzzles some people, particularly those who subscribe to the traditional definition of “beta” software as not being yet ready for prime time.” (via John Gruber)

Gruber himself retorts:

“Imagine that — people thought that what Google meant by “beta” was what everyone else means by “beta”. Shocking”

Classic Gruber.

Now, I’ve heard Google spin it this way all over the web, but what I keep wondering is what Google’s special, newfangled, hi-falutin’ definition of beta actually is. The closest I’ve seen is this:

“Others say that, over the last five years, a beta culture has grown around web apps, such that the very meaning of “beta” is debatable. And rather than the packaged, stagnant software of decades past, we’re moving to a world of rapid developmental cycles where products like Gmail continue to change indefinitely.”

Um… What the hell are you guys talking about? Really. What is a “beta culture?” Seriously. What is that? And are you telling me that Google’s apps are the only ones to “change  indefinitely.” That’s funny, because I keep running these software update thingies on my computer and all its applications. And every year or so I install new versions of said apps, loaded with new features. So tell me again: How is your definition of beta different than everyone else’s? And why in the name of sweet merciful heaven has Gmail been beta for the past five years?

Ridiculous! And the more you try to spin it the more arrogant and full-of-it you come across.

Just admit it. You’re afraid to commit. It’s okay. We get it. There’s no shame in that.

The Beta Setting

The oddest thing is that Google clearly thinks of the term beta as completely meaningless:

“Don’t despair… for those of you long-time Gmail-ers who might feel some separation anxiety, we’ve got a solution. Just go to Settings, click on Labs, turn on “Back to Beta,” and it’ll be like Gmail never left beta at all.”

That’s right. You want the beta label back? Just turn it on. Which begs the question, why did they use the term for the past five years?

It’s just stupid.

Now let me start by saying I don’t use Twitter. I don’t even have an account. And this leads me to my first beef about Twitter: the barrier to entry. “Come on!” you say, “All you need is an email address and a password.” Yes, This is true. But in a world where a user such as myself already has about 80 trillion user accounts, and about 20 trillion of those are in now-defunct, out-of-style, unused social networks, one starts to think a bit more carefully about signing up for anything at all anymore. I mean, Jesus, I still get email from Friendster. Fucking Friendster! And don’t even get me started on the whole online dating thing. Suffice to say, I’ve been doing this for a while now, and I’ve gotten gun-shy.

Twitter

But the other, bigger, more hidden barrier to entry — the one no one talks about much when they talk about Twitter — is the fact that to Twitter “properly” takes a certain kind of work. It’s not like starting a blog; you can’t just start Tweeting in a vacuum and hope to get anywhere. No, Twitter requires effort and strategy. Effort in the following of other Twitter users and, eventually, strategy in being followed by other Twitterers. It’s not that I mind work — I certainly do my fair share of it — but the goal of Twitter work seems to be following and/or being followed. And I’ve never been much of a pack animal.

A friend of mine, who has also been reading about, but so far refrained from joining, Twitter, recently remarked (in a Facebook status update, no less):

“I’ve been reading about this for the past couple days and it seems to me what Twitter does is take educated and mobile people who would form a kind of elite regardless of the technology of the day, and offers them another way to seperate [sic] themselves from the masses while at the same time allowing them to assert that they are in fact very well-connected.”

This describes a feeling I’ve had for some time about Twitter, but have been unable to put into words. Twitter has an air of exclusivity that I find off-putting. Defensive article titles like, “Twitter Quitters Just Don’t Get It” don’t do much to ameliorate that feeling. And so, something that at it’s heart is perfectly benign, and potentially even useful or entertaining — an extremely micro micro-blogging platform with a small per-post character limit — has become something that fosters a certain sense of resentment from those of us who choose not to partake of its offerings. If there’s been a Twitter backlash, it’s probably largely due to the defensive posture of its users. And I believe it’s partly this posture that my friend is talking about.

Facebook

It seems to me that the other part of my friend’s argument — and the other part of my hesitance at signing up — is context. Like I said, I’m kinda burnt out on the whole social networking thing. But I recently joined Facebook just the same, and I’ve stuck around. And the reason I can stomach Facebook is context. When you sign up for Facebook you immediately have a context, and that context is your friends. What better context could there be? Everyone wants to stay connected with friends, and Facebook handles this better than any social network I’ve used so far. I think Twitter’s lack of context, while certainly being part of its charm, is another barrier to entry for many. For the technologically savvy (which I consider myself to be), and for those inclined to experiment with social networks in general (which I no longer consider myself to be so much), the lack of context is far less vexing. And those seem to be just the sorts of people using Twitter — the elite my friend is referring to. They seem to have figured out a way to make Twitter genuinely useful. For them. But by outward appearances, Twitter’s context seems to be less about staying connected and more about appearing clever amongst a group of peers.

Tweetie: A Twitter Client

To those elite Twitter lovers though, I say bully for you. You get on that Twitter client-of-the-day (I must admit, some of the client apps look beautiful enough to make me want to join purely from an interest in interface design) and you tweet your little hearts out. I bear no grudge against this. I just personally have no desire to be any more connected than I already am. I don’t see how Twitter will be useful or enjoyable for me. I don’t get Twitter, and I’m pretty sure I just don’t really want to.

And bully for me too. ‘Cause guess what? I don’t get Flickr either. Or MySpace. Or feed readers. In fact, there’s a whole lot of stuff I don’t get.

And all the snide little articles in the world aren’t going to change my mind.